Bush agrees that a Iraq time table is needed.

[Gilding the Lily]

This is why we went to Iraq... :blink:

"One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to
the war on terror" -- Pres. Bush ("Evening News," CBS, 9/6).



During an interview on Fox News:

BUSH: "I said I made the right decision. Knowing what I know today, I would have still made that decision."

HUME: So, if you had had this - if the weapons had been out of the equation because the intelligence did not conclude that he had them, it was still the right call?

BUSH: Absolutely." (Fox News, 12/14/05)


Perhaps WMD's was just pretext for another reason to invade? Bush's own words seem to point in that direction. On the same token, however, perhaps the real reason to invade is/was a noble cause?!?

Obviously, NATO alliance members generally agreed (whether right or wrong) that Iraq possesed WMD capabilities. This was not the disagreement at the heart of the bitter 2002-03 debate over invading Iraq. The differences and debates were over the appropriate response to this potential threat. The core NATO allies (and many U.S. citizens) disagreed with the United States about whether preemption was an appropriate counter to Iraqi efforts to develop WMD's.

 

[delldude]

Perhaps WMD's was just pretext for another reason to invade? Bush's own words seem to point in that direction. On the same token, however, perhaps the real reason to invade is/was a noble cause?!?

Oil funded terror ops?

 

[KCFlyer]

Oil funded terror ops?

You mean like the terror ops that were funded in large part by Saudi oil? Oh if only Saddam would have been a bit nicer to us - he might be our ally - like the Saudi's.

 

[delldude]

Hey,whats that knife sticking out your back?
Friends those Saud's...amazing whose butt Uncle Sam will kiss for oil.And vice versa in all fairness.

I mentioned earlier there was concern that Iran and Syria would take Iraq and its oil and use the huge amount of monies for terrorist activities.To me that alone seemed like a reasonable excuse for going to Iraq...I mean it seems better now than WMD's.

 

[local 12 proud]

Seems to me that the weapons that caused mass destruction on our shores were boxcutters and boeings.

...And why do you think that is?

All the more reason to eradicate those suicide zealots before they can inflict an even more costly unimaginable attack upon our country and its citizens.

Also...you must not remember Vietnam all that well.

I remember it well but whats that got to do with the price of tea in china?

Since you libs like to use Viet Nam as a measuring stick and compare the war as a "Quagmire" then I'll use your analogy as well to point out that over 58,000 American troops lost their lives in Viet Nam. We've lost just over 3000 in Iraq, One life is too many but the price of war involves the spilling of blood.

There weren't that many college grads (Bush, Cheney, et.al) serving over there...and if we discover that our volunteer army is too stretched to conduct this "global war on terror", then what Kerry said might prove to be right on the mark...if you don't get deferments like our commamder and vice commander did...you'll end up in Iraq.

You name me one war in the history of this country that made up a large majority of college grads. Its common knowledge that the vast amount of enlistees have always been boys right out of high school. The ones who have college education in many cases become officers.

And a question...here in Kansas, a small town was wiped off the map by a tornado. Most of the Kansas National Guardand their equipment are deployed in Iraq.

Depends on who you listen to, either way its an issue that needs to be addressed without playing politics.

How come Bush bravely served in the National Guard when the regular Army was fighting in Vietnam???

Well since your throwing around service records...

Who was it demonstrating , participating, and actually organizing protests against the United States involvement in South East Asia?

Hint: Not only was he a draft dodger, he later became CIC! :down:

 

[KCFlyer]

I remember it well but whats that got to do with the price of tea in china?

Hmmm...What war was it Kerry served in (and Bush didn't) again? Your youtube citation seems to claim that Kerry "Belittled the troops". But what he said was 100% TRUE during Vietnam...drop out of college and you'll find yourself in in the Mekong Delta. If Bush really thought he was fighting a "global war on terror", then he'd have a draft similar to Vietnam in place...and if he had that - then Kerry's statements take on a whole different tone, don't they now??

Since you libs like to use Viet Nam as a measuring stick and compare the war as a "Quagmire" then I'll use your analogy as well to point out that over 58,000 American troops lost their lives in Viet Nam. We've lost just over 3000 in Iraq, One life is too many but the price of war involves the spilling of blood.

Indeed it does. But We've been in Iraq for only 4 years...we were in Vietnam for 16. And for the entire 16 years we were fighting the North Vietnamese. We didn't all of the sudden decide to go invade Bora Bora because they were a bigger "threat". In 2001, we went to war to fight the enemy that attacked us...then...less than two years later, shifted our focus to someone who didn't, but had to be played up as "evil" (the Great Satan, if you will...looks like Evangelicals have a lot in common with Imams). Had we lost 3000 lives in the hunt for the group that attacked us, it would be easier to take. That we have lost 3000 lives in a secondary battle is a shame.

You name me one war in the history of this country that made up a large majority of college grads. Its common knowledge that the vast amount of enlistees have always been boys right out of high school. The ones who have college education in many cases become officers.

Oh...you're right...I can't. But in the wars of the 20th Century, we had a DRAFT. How many fighters do you think we would have had in Vietnam without a DRAFT? And since that was just a war with jungle guerillas, versus a "global war on terror"...where is the DRAFT to provide the manpower necessary to conduct such a war? I guess in the words of W's daddy...implementing a draft "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture" because of the political fallout.

Which brings me back to sacrifice. During every war in the 20th century, the American people were asked to sacrifice in some way to help the war effort. In the World Wars, we rationed gas (heaven forbid we cramp our SUV style today)...in other wars we were asked to sacrifice sending our kids to the battlefield. I don't have any kids old enough to go into the military, I'm far to old to go into the military. What sacrifice has GW Bush asked of me? To go the mall and shop. Great. We're fighting a "global war on terror" pretty much by ourselves, and the best Bush can ask of me is to go to Sears????

 

[local 12 proud]

OK, we retreat from Iraq and then what?

Set back and watch Iran and Al Qaeda tear it to shreds, embolden the enemy, and as UT stated prepare for WAR to be fought here on the Homeland?

Is this the solution you libs really want, or is it just your vehement antipathy for the current administration that desires to see us fail?

 

[KCFlyer]

OK, we retreat from Iraq and then what?

Set back and watch Iran and Al Qaeda tear it to shreds, embolden the enemy, and as UT stated prepare for WAR to be fought here on the Homeland?

Is this the solution you libs really want, or is it just your vehement antipathy for the current administration that desires to see us fail?

YOu're sure that our actions in Iraq are going to prevent us from seeing the war here in our homeland? I don't. I feel pretty confident that there WILL be another attack in the homeland, whether we stay in Iraq or not. I like how Bush and Co have laid claim to the word "embolden". Out of curiosity, had the 9/11 attacks occured in 1998 instead of 2001 and Clinton went after Osama, then diverted his attention to Saddam, whould you have applauded his actions, or would that have just been another tactic to divert attention from a blowjob?

 

[local 12 proud]

YOu're sure that our actions in Iraq are going to prevent us from seeing the war here in our homeland? I don't. I feel pretty confident that there WILL be another attack in the homeland, whether we stay in Iraq or not.

I don't have a crystal ball so its hard to say, but if we pull out of Iraq before the new government has control of the situiation its going to be a blood bath on an unimaginable scale not to mention further destabilize the middle east region. Right or wrong, we went to Iraq and its broke we have a responsibilty to help fix it if thats even possible, still we must make every effort. I don't think walking away from that mess will win much support from the rest of the world and indeed could send the message that America can't be counted on to go the distance.

Out of curiosity, had the 9/11 attacks occured in 1998 instead of 2001 and Clinton went after Osama, then diverted his attention to Saddam, whould you have applauded his actions, or would that have just been another tactic to divert attention from a blowjob?

If our President and our Leaders are privy to Information that we are not concerning National Security I support their actions to defend this Nation Irregardless of whom occupies the White House. We The People elect our leaders remember?

 

[KCFlyer]

I don't have a crystal ball so its hard to say, but if we pull out of Iraq before the new government has control of the situiation its going to be a blood bath on an unimaginable scale not to mention further destabilize the middle east region. Right or wrong, we went to Iraq and its broke we have a responsibilty to help fix it if thats even possible, still we must make every effort.

Then Bush should have the cojones to REINSTITUTE THE DRAFT and up the manpower and send them over there to do the job. Especially if we broke Iraq in the name of a "Global war on Terror". If it's a "global war", but it's only the US that's fighting it - then we need much more than a volunteer Army with guys that are being redeployed 3,4 or 5 times. Bush wears his rose colored glasses and proclaims that Iraq is turning around, even as more troops are blown up by "insurgents". But if the GOP has a chance of taking the white house in 2008, then it wouldn't be 'prudent' to fight the war the way a "global war" should be fought.

I don't think walking away from that mess will win much support from the rest of the world and indeed could send the message that America can't be counted on to go the distance.

And I think that the terrorists can see that because of politics, America will never have the manpower to support a "global war on terror"...so they keep us occupied over there, making us feel safe at home because we are fighting a bunch of guys in the desert, while the real terrorists are casing our ports and cities and water supplies and *gasp* refineries (because they know that to screw up the oil supply would wreak havoc on the American economy...$5 a gallon gas will do that to ya) and will let us know soon enough that we were just deluding ourselves thinking that we were 'fighting the war over there'.

If our President and our Leaders are privy to Information that we are not concerning National Security I support their actions to defend this Nation Irregardless of whom occupies the White House. We The People elect our leaders remember?

Bullsh*t. If Clinton would have fought the exact same war, using the exact same logic, the right would have been wailing about the "draft dodger" sending our fine troops into harms way to divert attention from a blowjob.

 

[local 12 proud]

Then Bush should have the cojones to REINSTITUTE THE DRAFT and up the manpower and send them over there to do the job. Especially if we broke Iraq in the name of a "Global war on Terror". If it's a "global war", but it's only the US that's fighting it - then we need much more than a volunteer Army with guys that are being redeployed 3,4 or 5 times.

I agree, should have been done from the git go!

Bullsh*t. If Clinton would have fought the exact same war, using the exact same logic, the right would have been wailing about the "draft dodger" sending our fine troops into harms way to divert attention from a blowjob.

You asked me on a personal level if 'I' would have supported his actions, I don't speak for the Right I speak for myself!

 

[UAL_TECH]

You mean like the terror ops that were funded in large part by Saudi oil? Oh if only Saddam would have been a bit nicer to us - he might be our ally - like the Saudi's.

He 'was' our ally.
Who was providing weapons for his 'jihad' with Iran (over a land dispute)?
Our 'little' weapons for hostages episode might have made him somewhat terse and distrusting that we were supplying both sides with weapons.

Maybe that made him think we might not be trustworthy…

We can’t play 'ALL' sides and win trust from any. JMHO, that’s why the Afghanistan’s lost our trust and is reverting to the Taliban/Al Qaeda/War Lord controlled crap hole that it was before.

B) UT

 

[delldude]

Out of curiosity, had the 9/11 attacks occured in 1998 instead of 2001 and Clinton went after Osama, then diverted his attention to Saddam, whould you have applauded his actions, or would that have just been another tactic to divert attention from a blowjob?

depends on who's going to give the BJ

You know...its funny you bring that up.....when he hit that vacant camp in Afghanistan and then the aspirin factory in Sudan or wherever it was,I thought 'what the hells he doing'?? I mean it was obvious to me it was not a good mil op....when he pussyfooted engaging in Bosnia,Somalia and the rest of his 'sorties'...his rules of engagement were so bizzare,bombing from 40,000 feet or so....Clinton was so paranoid about his damned approval rating the last thing he wanted was some American pilot paraded around on CNN.If Bill Clinton would have engaged any enemy with extreme predjuduce,he would have had my support.But all he did was 'dabble'.

Then Bush should have the cojones to REINSTITUTE THE DRAFT and up the manpower and send them over there to do the job.

Check this out..

You have an all volunteer service that has a lot of soldiers re-upping....so something must work.

while the real terrorists are casing our ports and cities and water supplies and *gasp* refineries (because they know that to screw up the oil supply would wreak havoc on the American economy...$5 a gallon gas will do that to ya) and will let us know soon enough that we were just deluding ourselves thinking that we were 'fighting the war over there'.

You better do a reality check,Pal...it won't be no $5 a gallon..it'll be about 4-5 times that and it will induce a global depression the likes never seen on this planet before....but then one leader will arise with an answer
Peace and Safety....

 

[BuffaloJoe]

[]

You have an all volunteer service that has a lot of soldiers re-upping....so something must work.

Even in Vietnam there were NO three tours of duty required. These two goofs in DC can't get nothing right. Soldiers re-upping, yeah for a $50,000 signing bonus. What is the new recruits like. Open admission. They are taking recruits with prior criminal records now. So tell me what brand of stock is that?

Why don't Bush send his daughters over there? Get them to enlist. Even in England Prince Charles' son is going over. And why not tell Iraq in advance that Cheney is going over? I hear Dick is good with the gun!

And gas should be $5-6/gallon, us Americans are too darn dependant on it. We live life too much in luxury. Not many of us know how to walk, or ride a bike. We should invest our money in Public Transportation. Just too many of us become lazy. How many people drive a block to buy a lottery ticket, or a gallon of milk.

 

[delldude]

Yeah...I guess you're right.

Say,where'd you get that avatar....reminds me of the Lewinski.